M/S Reliance Publications Pvt Ltd v. Prem Chand Gupta And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.03.2026 M/s Reliance Publications Pvt. Ltd.

......Petitioner

Versus

Prem Chand Gupta and another ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present:

Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, & Mr. Akshay Laller, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
  



 

     

  



    

   

 



   !"#$     %       

   &

   '"("

!  ')* 

((  )+() 

,

- . 

 




       

 )/%  

 

 !"

$ %   

-
 0

1
#$! 2 (

    3   

 (

 

   /  Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-Prem Chand Gupta filed a suit for specific performance and declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner and another. Notice of the suit was issued to the present petitioner, who contested the same by filing a written statement. After completion of

pleadings, issues were framed and both the parties led their respective evidence. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 moved an application under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file/tender an additional document in evidence. Notice of the said application was issued to the present petitioner, who contested the same by filing a reply. The learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, vide order dated 27.09.2023, allowed the said application. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground taken in the application was well within the knowledge of respondent No.1-Prem Chand Gupta and, therefore, there was no necessity for the respondent to move such an application after having already tendered his evidence. He further submits that, in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court, the said document has already been taken on record and even the arguments are presently being addressed by learned counsel for the parties.

4.

 

/       )

  

    

   /

) 

/ % %             

 %    

       

 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the paper book.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present revision petition is

disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional District Judgecum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, to consider all the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing in the main arguments.

7.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE 10.03.2026 anil Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No